Live data from Hacker News

Elite Underproduction

troynikov.io

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: Elite Underproduction

#31
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because of visas. In the US you can study CS at a good school now and make $200k straight out of undergrad. Makes a technical PhD a lot less tempting

Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...

Large tech companies will pay that much and if you've got the skills to get a PhD then you can very likely pass their interview process.

https://www.levels.fyi/company/Google/salaries/Software-Engi...

Also most of the generic pay sites in my experience are down weighted by a bunch of underpaid visa workers, boot camp graduates and so on. Also government workers who don't get paid well but get great benefits.

Re: Elite Underproduction

#32
I think Turchin percieves the matter better than the author.

For some reason the author presumes everyone who decides to to study physics should not veer from this path or else they have failed. This is an extraordinary queer point of view.

As such a "failed" physicist myself now in software, having a degree in physics makes me actually quite malleable for all sorts of fun things, and my studies have indoctrinated me to basically view everything as an unknows system, that can be modelled even though current models don't exist.

This is very usefull!

It's great to have this sort of dialogue, but the n physicists doing programming have found a niche for themselves and their talents. I would not call that failing.

The other side of the coin is that should science be better supported? Instill insight and ambition to students? None of those are bad things from the point of view of the discpline.

But attacking the argument from the point of view that "everyone who started studying physics, and are now doing something else signal a failure of the system" smells very much of propagating a view that people at the young age when they decide their university program should have a great understanding of the world, their position in it, and absolute certainty that physics is the best way to spend their working life. Which most 18-20 year olds probably don't have (well, I did not for one). And having thus chosen a profession out of poor understanding of the complete picture, should stick to their decision and pull through, even though it seems to them other professions would be more suitable.

The author mixes the bag even more by off-the-cuff random judgment calls on the intrinsic human value of others labour, which never really results in a sane dialogue. The claim itself is incredibly elitist - "Optimizing an algorithm at Google has less human value than repeating an known experiment at a physics lab to dot the i:s on a well understood theory".

Physics is very important! But individual career choices are in a different category altogether. If you go and study physics and stick to it you might have ended up wasting your intellectual potential on hyped dead-ends like string theory . Now where is the benefit for mankind in that? (the comment is intended as a naughty swipe and I'm smirking while typing this).

Re: Elite Underproduction

#33
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because of visas. In the US you can study CS at a good school now and make $200k straight out of undergrad. Makes a technical PhD a lot less tempting

Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...

OP said you can make $200k straight out of undergrad, which is probably technically true, like it's technically true that I can win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is probably a new grad somewhere making $200k in far-far right tail of the distribution. Just like it's technically true that you can make $400k (or $600k or $1M, whatever the popular number to cite is now) as a software engineer. Yes, these people probably do exist in that long tail, at certain top levels in certain top companies in certain top locations.

Re: Elite Underproduction

#34

I disagree with the article's premises and conclusions, my perspective is that of a physicist who also knows many lapsed physicists. The premise seems wrong in that he disagrees with the elite overproduction thesis, but the professions he lists are " lawyers, MBA holders,..." and later to finance. But these are the professions likely to be zero-sum. So to me the article really is "I agree with the elite overproductio…

I took the author as saying we should have more research positions for those PhDs to inhabit and while we're at it, why don't we let them do that research instead of playing the current academy games that undermine research production.

Re: Elite Underproduction

#36
This seems to subscribe to the "bulb theory" of technological advancement; that if we have ten times as many physicists we will make physics advances ten times as quickly.

That's just not true. And the various "lapsed physicists" he meets are in fact proof of elite overproduction.

Re: Elite Underproduction

#37
Offtopic, but the article uses and defines "MAGMA", meaning Meta, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. That actually makes a lot of sense to me. How did Netflix make it into the usual acronym and not Microsoft?

Re: Elite Underproduction

#38
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but wonder if the current economy, with all its inequality and disproportionate rewards for the highly skilled, is a necessary step on the path towards changing the anti-intellectual US culture. You get more of what you reward and less of what you don't. It's not always a pleasant truth, but it's a powerful one.

Calling it a “step” implies moving in that direction. But the problem in America is that the counter-movement against “anti-intellectualism” is just as anti-intellectual. More people are going to college, but they’re not majoring in math and science. We have an ever expanding ecosystem of non-rigorous *studies fields. These are arguably even less valuable than the cultural norms of Bible-thumping small towns. At leas…

> These are arguably even less valuable than the cultural norms of Bible-thumping small towns.

Since you seem to be a fan of intellectual rigor, can you describe the process by which you arrive at the relative worth of (apparently) social science programs vs. small town social behavior?

Can that method also tell us whether citrus flavors are more valuable than ballet?

Re: Elite Underproduction

#39
post #2

I strongly agree with the premise of the article, and I wish more of society was aware of the issues that propagate what the author calls "Elite Underproduction". However, while I agree with the premise, I think the precise factors that create this issue are not sufficiently discussed or agreed upon (Not enough money goes into science research? Regulation imposes too heavy a burden on the outputs of scientific endeav…

> However, while I agree with the premise, I think the precise factors that create this issue are not sufficiently discussed or agreed upon (Not enough money goes into science research? Regulation imposes too heavy a burden on the outputs of scientific endeavors in the material world? We culturally are not sufficiently accepting of those people who would like to do elite-esque style research?). I'm not sure what the precise ratios of the causes are but I feel each of those question marks I just wrote contribute somewhat.

In terms of funding, I don't think increasing the amount of funding is going to be more than a short-term fix. Seems to me that there's a lot of induced demand: Add more money and it's quickly gobbled up.

While I don't know all the details, it seems to me that we simply have far too many PhD students. I have a PhD, and I feel that a lot of well-intentioned people pushed me towards that before I was wise enough to understand the implications. The cynic in me thinks that some of them were more concerned with advancing their own careers than helping me out, as they need students to advance their careers.

Too much science funding goes towards PhD students in my view. We need to reduce the amount going towards PhD students and increase the amount going towards more permanent research positions. Yes, the total headcount for researchers likely would decrease as PhD students are cheaper than experienced researchers, but I think overall scientific productivity would improve as experience matters, and we'd stop disappointing people who want jobs in science before they waste too much time on it.

I wrote a bit about this earlier today, by coincidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29141107

Re: Elite Underproduction

#40
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because of visas. In the US you can study CS at a good school now and make $200k straight out of undergrad. Makes a technical PhD a lot less tempting

Where are you getting that $200k figure? These are for not just out of college: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/computer-science-salary-S... https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Co... https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Master_of_Scienc...

Somewhat unrelated to the point you’re making, something seems off about the results in that Glassdoor link.

Searching “computer science” in the jobs tab treats that as a keyword and shows results for a variety of job titles related to computer science. The salaries tab, however, seems to indicate it’s only collecting information about job titles that have “computer science” in the title.

Post reply on HN